LexP. S. R. SADHANANTHAM versus ARUNACHALAM & AIIR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. • • 873 P. S. R. SADHANANTHAM v. ARUNACHALAM & Ai'IR. February 1, 1980 [V. R KRISHNA h1m, s. MURTAZA E\ZAL Au, D. A. DESAI, R. S. PATHAK AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ.] Constitution of India 1950, Article 136- Scope of jurisdiction-High Court in appeal setting aside conviction and sentence by trial court for murder- No appeal preferred by government-Private party if could invoke jurisdiction under Article 136. Words & Phrases-'Crime'-Definition of. The petitioner was acquitted by the High Court in appeal, of charges under sections 302 and 148 I.P.C., but the brother of the deceased-not the State nor even the first informant, petitioned this Court under Article 136 of the Consti- tution for special leave to appeal against acquittal, got leave, had his appeal · heard, which was ultimately allowed the court setting aside the judgment of the High Court, and restoring the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court under section 302 I.P.C. (Arunachalam v. S. R. Sadhananthan [1979] 3 S.C.R. 482). The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, contending : (1) that Article 136 did not empower the grant of special leave to the brother of the deceased and the grant of special leave by the Court and its entertaining the appeal violated Article 21 of the Constitution, and (2) be· fore the Court may grant special leave under Article 136 there must be an antecedent right of appeal absent which the question of leave by the Court does not arise. Dismissing the petition, HELD: (per Krishna Iyer, .Murtaza Fazal Ali and Desai, JJ). 1. Justice is functionally outraged not only when an innocent person is punished but also when a gtrilty criminal gets away with it stultifying the legal system. [877H, 878A] 2. An insightful understanding of the sweep, scope and character of Art. 136 A c E F will easily dispel the dichotomy between an antecedent right of appeal and a G subsequent grant of leave. [878D] · 3. The jural reach and plural range of the judicial process to remove injustice in a ~ven society is a sure index of the versatile genius of law-in-action as a delivery system of social justice. Our constitutional order vests in the summit court a jurisdiction to do justice, at once omnipresent and omnipotent but con- trolled and guided by that refined yet flexible censor called judicial discretion. B This nidus of power and process, which master-minds the broad observance throughout the Republic of justice according to law, is Art. 136. [878E-F] --·---~-----......- -----· ,, I A B c D E BU SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 2 S.C.R. 4. In express terms, Art. 136 does not confer a right of appeal on a party as such but it confers a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to inter"' fere in suitable cases. Article 136 is a special jurisdiction. It is residuary power; it is extra-ordinary in its amplitude, its limit, when it chases injustice, is the sky itself. This Court functionally fulfils itself by reaching out to injustice wherever it is and this power is largely derived in the common run of cases from Art. 136. [878G-H, 879A] 5. There is a procedure necessarily implicit in the po\ver vested in the summit court. It must be remembered that Art. 136 confers jurisdiction on the highest court. The founding. fathers unarguabl)' intended in the very terms of Art. 136 that it shall be exercised by the highest judges of the land with scrupulous adherence to judicial principles well-established by precedents in bur jurispru· dence. Judicial discretion is canalised authority, not arbitrary eccentricity. [879A-C] 6. It is manifest that Art. 136 is of composite structure, is power-cum- procedure-power in that it vests jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, and proce· dure in that it spella a mode of hearing. It obligates the exercise of judicial discretion and the mode of hearing so characteristic of the c-0urt process. In short, there is an in-built prescription of power and procedure in terms of Art. 136 which meets the demand of A."1. 21. [879E-F] 7. If Art. 21 is telescoped into Art. 136, it follows that fair procedure is imprinted on the special leave that the court may grant or refuse. With a motion is made for leave to appeal against an acquittal, this Court appreciates the gravity of the peril to personal liberty involved in that proceeding. While conSidering the petition under Art. 136 the court·will pay attention to the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.